Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

DLine very unColt like Today


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Looked dominant.  
 

Jags dropped 30 on Tennessee.  Maybe they are just pretty good up front.  
 

I don’t recall seeing our Dline looking like that today.  

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.


yup.  Secondary looked good today.  Dline is the key to this d.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

Buckner played like we pay him to do today that is for sure :thmup:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had no film on the Jags and they had a new Offensive coordinator with new personnel in diff spots. Harder to prepare. I bet we play game 2 against Jax much better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't try to connect too many dots.

 

MN OL is not good. We played more man today, giving the DL more time to get home. It looked like we stunted/blitzed a bit more too.

 

As far as the TN/Jax game, TN hasn't looked that great. They've needed late game heroics and FGs to win both games. Is Jax as bad as we thought, probably not. But you shouldn't be all that surprised that Minshew passed for 300 against them. Their pass D wasn't good last year, and it's not good this year. Didn't watch the game, but I'd bet they played a lot soft zone like we did, and Minshew simply carved them up short to intermediate like he did us.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

Yeah but the main factor in this game is the dline was dominant and gave up nothing on the ground and pressured the QB.  Now MN might be crap, but today was impressive.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Yeah but the main factor in this game is the dline was dominant and gave up nothing on the ground and pressured the QB.  Now MN might be crap, but today was impressive.

Good stats are always fun. Ws are always fun.

 

Point is, the DL just didn't get better from last week to this week. We sacked both Minshew and Cousins 3 times each. We actually had a bit more TFLs last week. We held Jax to 71 RB rushing yards, and held MN to 80. Not a lot of difference in those aspects. The difference is we INT'd Cousins 3 times and Minshew 0 times. That, and we didn't turn the ball over as much. Why didn't we INT Minshew? Because he played soft and gave him a ton of cushion. He ate us up. We didn't play near as far off the OL this week if my eyes didn't deceive me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

With the exception of the upcoming games against the Jets, Bengals and Bears, we are going to find out how good the defence is. No where to hide

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

What dline stats are you referring to?  Like tackles?  Tackles are basically unimportant statistically for linemen.  DTs can have zero tackles and completely dominate a football game.  They looked good today and pedestrian last week.

 

now it appears that MN might totally suck but who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

With the exception of the upcoming games against the Jets, Bengals and Bears, we are going to find out how good the defence is. No where to hide

My only hope is that Flus got tired of hearing about his Charmin soft zone. Looked to me that our DBs weren't near as deep and we played more man today. We really only did that vs KC last year. KC was crippled, but still was effective. It was effective today too, so hope he continues to be more aggressive. 

 

Not really worried about TN, NYJ, or Chicago, but every other team will have success vs our typical zone. Our run D was good last year, and is good this year. Just need to keep our foot on the pedal vs the pass IMO.

 

And you better be worried about Burrow lol. He looked very sharp in his passes vs the Browns, and will only get better. The Bengals overall I'm not to worried about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

They def played better today. I still have questions as this Vikings offense is putrid. LBs were better today also. 

The cover two depends on line play.  Pressure and DTs taking up blocks.  They make LBs look like stars when they do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nickster said:

What dline stats are you referring to?  Like tackles?  Tackles are basically unimportant statistically for linemen.  DTs can have zero tackles and completely dominate a football game.  They looked good today and pedestrian last week.

 

now it appears that MN might totally suck but who knows.

Rushing yards, sacks, TFLs. I referred you to the other post where I listed them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the Jags nearly beat Tennessee this week, I'm starting to wonder if they are actually pretty solid. 
 

Even at that, we should of had that game in the bag. If we kick that FG, and go up 10-0. IMO, we blow them out. We can run it more; and play differently. 
 

The Vikings put up 34 points on GB. I'm very impressed with our performance on defense W/O our #1 corner!!! 
 

wait until Turay comes back!! He will compliment our line perfectly, IMO. We are just missing a speed rusher. 
 

We can potentially make a run here with the next 4-5 games very winnable!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I thought you were actually talking  about Defensive lineman stats.  

Adv stats won't be out till tomorrow that will include QBHs, KDs, Pressures, etc.. 

Don't act like sacks and TFLs aren't regarded as standard DL metircs.

I expect overall pressures to be up a little given MN's OL is worse than Jax, and Cousins actually threw more than Minshew. I expect the overall % relative to attempts to be pretty similar though, just like the basic stats though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Adv stats won't be out till tomorrow that will include QBHs, KDs, Pressures, etc.. 

Don't act like sacks and TFLs aren't regarded as standard DL metircs.

I expect overall pressures to be up a little given MN's OL is worse than Jax, and Cousins actually threw more than Minshew. I expect the overall % relative to attempts to be pretty similar though, just like the basic stats though.

And no sacks and tfls are not the standard for DTs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Looked dominant.  
 

Jags dropped 30 on Tennessee.  Maybe they are just pretty good up front.  
 

I don’t recall seeing our Dline looking like that today.  

if the DL plays well enough like today the secondary will be fine

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

 

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

And no sacks and tfls are not the standard for DTs.

 

The conversation started about general DL as you well know, not DT. Please limit your usual spin. You're trying to reduce applicable data points because your not confident in original argument.

 

If you want to split hairs, sacks/pressure/KDs/QBHs are indeed important metrics for 3Ts. NTs on the other hand are different, and need to be viewed apart from typical stats. Case in point, vs the pass, Buckner's job is absolutely to get to the passer. Against the run it's to stop the run, or keep the guard off the LB. These are basic 4-3 concepts you should know.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

My only hope is that Flus got tired of hearing about his Charmin soft zone. Looked to me that our DBs weren't near as deep and we played more man today. We really only did that vs KC last year. KC was crippled, but still was effective. It was effective today too, so hope he continues to be more aggressive. 

 

Not really worried about TN, NYJ, or Chicago, but every other team will have success vs our typical zone. Our run D was good last year, and is good this year. Just need to keep our foot on the pedal vs the pass IMO.

 

And you better be worried about Burrow lol. He looked very sharp in his passes vs the Browns, and will only get better. The Bengals overall I'm not to worried about. 

We shall c if they have the ability to play man against some of the more athletic offences. Sometimes I think that is why he chooses heavy zone against atheltic offences.  I dont think he trusts the back end.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moosejawcolt said:

We shall c if they have the ability to play man against some of the more athletic offences. Sometimes I think that is why he chooses heavy zone against atheltic offences.  I dont think he trusts the back end.

We played more man vs KC last year. Yes Mahomes was gimpy, but they still had athletic/fast guys flying around. Hardman is a 4.33 bolt of lighting, Pringle a 4.4s guy. And then you have Kelce and we all know him. I think it Reich and Flus knew that Mahomes would pick them apart if they didn't go more man.

 

I do agree that they probably lack a bit of trust, but I also know they simply like the bend but don't break philosophy. I'll make this prediction, a lot of QBs on our schedule will pick us apart if stay zone. Jackson would kill us if we give a bunch of cushion off the LOS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

What is a Colts performance?  What do we really know about this team so far?  I need more games........and cowbell.

We won't know how our O is until Chicago. Won't know what our D is until we play the Browns and Lions. 

 

Won't know if we can play a complete game until the Ravens. 

 

:thmup:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

The conversation started about general DL as you well know, not DT. Please limit your usual spin. You're trying to reduce applicable data points because your not confident in original argument.

 

If you want to split hairs, sacks/pressure/KDs/QBHs are indeed important metrics for 3Ts. NTs on the other hand are different, and need to be viewed apart from typical stats. Case in point, vs the pass, Buckner's job is absolutely to get to the passer. Against the run it's to stop the run, or keep the guard off the LB. These are basic 4-3 concepts you should know.

 

 

Incorrect.  The two quotes you quoted from me says what is looked for 4 man fronts.  It is not necessary for  3Ts to get tackles and sacks.   It’s not a bad thing, but their job is to penetrate and take up blocks primarily. Other guys then clean up the trash usually.  They usually try to push rather than rip or swim in the rush.  Getting skinny in the pass rush Too ofIn in manageable downs will often cause problems if their are giant lanes to run through have problems especially with mobile QBs.

 

there is the occasional guy like Donald and Sap that is really able to do it all, and yeah that’s awesome, but it’s not the primary job.

 


 

and I said edge guys are different.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nickster said:

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

Yeah but u never know till u try..I’d rather get burned in man than allowing free catches in Zone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good example of what I am talking about with DT "stats".

 

 

1. Aaron Donald, Los Angeles Rams

The best defensive lineman in the NFL, and the best defensive player on most Sundays. Donald’s sacks declined from 20.5 to 12.5 and his total pressures from 113 to 80, but he still left a trail of frustrated offensive linemen. At 6'1" and 280 pounds, Donald has an unrivaled combination of technique, strength and quickness to the pocket. He’s an every-gap defender and could probably put up double-digit sacks as a pure end. Donald also led the league in tackles for a loss for the second straight season.

 

All I'm trying to point out here is that the pressure and sacks stat being down did not necessarly mean he was worse.  HE is perhaps the best evrer to play the poistion.   The TFL stat you are referring to is obviously a big number, but it doesn't mean this guy isn't still dominationg a game in which he records no sacks or tackles.  He's probably still dominating in this case.

 

3. Kenny Clark, Green Bay Packers

At 6'3" and 314 pounds, Clark can win everywhere from nose tackle to five-tech end, but he’s especially effective between the guard and tackle as a penetrating, pass-rushing force (IE. 3 Tech). Clark, who has never put up more than six sacks in a season, is an example of why that statistic doesn’t always mean as much as we think. Last season, including the playoffs, no interior defensive lineman had more quarterback hurries than Clark’s 58, and only Aaron Donald had more total pressures than Clark’s 69. Factor in his 45 run stops, and you’ve got one of the most complete players at hi

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I wouldn't try to connect too many dots.

 

MN OL is not good. We played more man today, giving the DL more time to get home. It looked like we stunted/blitzed a bit more too.

 

 

^^^This. We played man more and stunted/blitzed a bit more as well. Eberflus' change in schemes to mix it up (finally someone talked to him about it :)) had the biggest impact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nickster said:

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

 

In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.

 

If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.  

 

Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.  

 

None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.

 

So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.

 

If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.  

 

Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.  

 

None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.

 

So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  

The bolded part is what I was trying to say.  and I shold have said not essential for DT's to get sacks or tackles necessarily.  Of course you need the DL to get your pressure if possible.

 

 A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't employ the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.

 

It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, will426 said:

Yeah but u never know till u try..I’d rather get burned in man than allowing free catches in Zone

Oh I can't stand our Cover 2.  We play so far off on it that it seems to negate the hook to flat zone that is supposed to be taken care of in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

The bolded part is what I was trying to say.

 

 A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't employ the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.

 

It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.

 

I don't disagree that even if he didn't have the 1.5 sacks he still would've had a nice game... that said, I have a hard time hearing an argument saying that QB hits, TFL, sacks by the DL are not important.  Yes, they can help the LBs by eating up blockers even if they don't record sacks, but sacks and TFLs are huge for momentum in games and also assist in altering the play of the QB (usually in a negative way -- e.g., the reason the Giants beat Brady in the SB two times, IMO, is because they were able to hit Brady consistently with their front 4, therefore taking away his ability to find easy check downs and also making him a less accurate passer due to obvious frustration/being flustered).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CurBeatElite said:

 

I don't disagree that even if he didn't have the 1.5 sacks he still would've had a nice game... that said, I have a hard time hearing an argument saying that QB hits, TFL, sacks by the DL are not important.  Yes, they can help the LBs by eating up blockers even if they don't record sacks, but sacks and TFLs are huge for momentum in games and also assist in altering the play of the QB (usually in a negative way -- e.g., the reason the Giants beat Brady in the SB two times, IMO, is because they were able to hit Brady consistently with their front 4, therefore taking away his ability to find easy check downs and also making him a less accurate passer due to obvious frustration/being flustered).

I don't mean they are not important, just that they aren't necessarily essential.  

 

The conversation came up in that I thought the Line looked dominant today, and didn't last week.  They weren't as bad last week as I emotionally first thought, but I still think they were much better.  Might be because MN might totally suck.  Maybe not.

 

Did you think they looked better this week or did it look similar to you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't mean they are not important, just that they aren't necessarily essential.  

 

The conversation came up in that I thought the Line looked dominant today, and didn't last week.  They weren't as bad last week as I emotionally first thought, but I still think they were much better.  Might be because MN might totally suck.  Maybe not.

 

Did you think they looked better this week or did it look similar to you?

 

I think pretty much the whole team/game plan looked better yesterday than in week 1.  We won the turnover battle, we dominated the time of possession (we won it against Jax, but we had the ball >5 minutes longer yesterday than week 1).  

 

I don't think our DL looked that bad against Jax, I think we lost that game because we left points on the board (missed FG plus turning it over on down on the Jax 3) and because we turned the ball over in inopportune situations.  Hard to win when the O gives the ball away in the situations we did.  We limited the Jags to 241 total yards of O, 150 passing and 91 rushing - so statistically, yardage wish anyway our D wasn't bad in week 1.  However, we played a soft zone and the Jags picked it apart... we also made some pretty costly and untimely penalties week 1 (e.g., Moore's horsecollar tackle) as well.  The defensive play calling seemed to be more aggressive yesterday, and overall I think the DL looked better, though I don't think week 1's loss was due to poor DL play as much as it was to poor secondary play, a less than stellar game plan and  untimely turnovers and penalties.  I think if Rivers avoided INTs (both of which the Jags scored off) and if we didn't leave 10 points out there, we would've been pretty happy with the teams' overall play week 1 as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The game wasn't exactly a shock due to the missing players, but some of the themes were not what I expected, how about you guys?    Reason's the game was lost and what's next:  --------------------------------- 1. Rock Ya Sin.  I think Rock is starting to look more like a Draft miss than hit.  They often refer to his wrestling career, and that is never good because it usually comes after a Defensive Hold or Interference.  He really put us in a bind with his first penalty, and drove a stake in our heart when we had them stopped but they got the ball back for a later TD, and arguments could be made it costs us 14 points because it so deflated our team we went into a tailspin and gave up that ridiculous 4th down play setting up the 5th TD.     2. Loss of poise.  I saw several things, but that horrendous punching and disqualification was so deflating to the teams loss of poise in performance that I wouldn't be disappointed to learn they cut him from the team, though I doubt they have the b*lls.  There should be a near zero tolerance for a role player special teamer to lose his cool that egregiously and cost the team at such a critical time.     3. Loss of AC/Poor O-Line Depth may be a fatal blow to any post season success.  We have a long long history of failure without our most important lineman.  Even though he isn't what he once was (and it has been clear to me he's playing hurt as much as simple decline has kicked in) the drop off is so dire after him that I think only with significant shuffling can we keep Rivers upright and healthy and have any chance to run an offense not always in crises.  With a poor LT, Rivers one glaring weakness, immobility is amplified 10X.  I will say his quick release saved as many sacks as Mahommes could have scrambled out of, but the difference is he can't possibly complete meaningful attacks with so little time or free space to launch it to an open receiver.  Frankly his performance under that pressure was the most impressive performance I have seen from him all year.  But heroic sack saving isn't effective offense.  This lack o-line  depth has been something MANY here have been pointing not only all season and pre season, but literally going back to last season as well.  And we had MUCH better depth last year than this.  It was my #1 concern entering the season.  It was obvious.  A brilliant GM keeps making this same error.  He admitted his failure to secure a quality O-Line his first year (after many had begged the previous GM to do the same, and I believe that is truly what cost him his job, or at least deserved to).     Things that were hopeful: ------------------------------ 1.   Hines has proven to be a warrior.  He's our most important and reliable offensive weapon, much like the pass catching RBs of River's SD teams.  We should never see another game without him being a key contributor, no different than TN using their RB to do the same.   Everyone knew Hines was the only thing working, but he kept working nonetheless.  Reich needs to stop abandoning our key offensive weapon.  I even loved when they sent him deep.  I think HE could be used much like TY used to be, leading to...   2. TY Hilton FINALLY utilized by Reich and Rivers.  TY still has tremendous value.  We were reminded of that finally.  He still has moves, he can still contribute.  Sure, he's not 24 years old anymore, but he is likely our second best weapon after Hines still.  But Rivers simply has no chemistry with him.  All game he was forcing throws to Pascal, who I like, but they had Pascal 100% locked down.  The few catches he made were 50-50 balls.     3.  We saw evidence that our TE's are capable.  Why don't we use them, and use them often?  A three headed monster that should be dominating.  I think for us to have success down the stretch, in addition to using Hilton and Hines, our 3 capable TE's need to be all over the place on short to medium routes using their size and capable hands.  We saw late (too late sadly) that they were playing.  It was almost like they weren't through 3 quarters.  Sure, TN had backed up coverage, but dang, those guys have skills and can be hit quickly.     4. Brissett has been used well in short yardage.  I am glad they are building on this.  Even his relative slowness, he looks like a lightning bolt compared to Rivers.  I do think they need to show some short yardage passing so they keep defenses honest helping his future sneaks.     5. Pinter was serviceable compared to LT options.  I hope our center comes back and finishes the season, but Pinter at least showed a little depth at G/C.     What to do in the future now that winning the division is reasonably out of reach; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. The line woes will continue to be a problem.  Depth is simply unacceptable.  I think if AC is lost for the season that we need to rethink positions, such as whether Smith could move to LT and perhaps use Pinter at RT?  I know he has "short arms" for Pro T play, but he has to be better than the other options.  I think they should strongly alter our game plans to account for lesser line e play.  Rivers didn't have time to let route develop, and with no mobility, they are going to have to improve our tepid screen play and conduct more short routes for multiple TE's in 2 TE sets.  Rivers has to be able to get the ball out quick.  I do think the play calling the past 4 weeks had improved, but something happened this game and we were just too limited until late in the game when they were hitting TEs and TY.   More please.     2. Our D should get back in line with the return of the Covid players.  I like the second half adjustments the D is making but why aren't we making these adjustments in the first half.  35 points is too much and the penalties are devastating.  Is it time to play Carrie instead of Ya Sin?  I think they should seriously consider demoting him for back ups.  He's just too much of a liability.  Perhaps if he came in off the bench we could get off the field more often in the first half.     What did you all think? 
    • I don’t mean to offend, but.....   The population of Buffalo is roughly 255,000.   The population of Chicago is roughly 2.66 million.   Our nation’s third largest city.  Plus, they were playing Green Bay, a team that historically gets good TV ratings even though it is much smaller than Buffalo.  It’s the smallest city to have a major sports franchise.  TV ratings are, in part,  why Indianapolis doesn’t get many National games unless they have someone like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.    It’s not just about the win-loss records. 
    • Hope he wears his clown mask!  He does very well against HOU historically... today, IMO, was his best game of season.  Would be nice to see him get another TD (or more) and break 100 yards for his first time in a long time.  The past few years he has carried us at the WR position until late in the season when he gets hampered by nagging injury... it'd be really cool if this year he does the opposite (starts slow and ends very solid).
    • Not sure why a couple people are confused about this thread, it's a fair question that people were also considering last season (with JB and Kelly). I was in the camp last year that thought we should have started Kelly once we were out of playoff contention and I have the same stance this season, we have to see what we've got in Eason at some point and it would make sense if there is no chance of playoffs. I wouldn't be totally shocked if Reich didn't play him even if this was the case though.
  • Members

    • JPFolks

      JPFolks 1,050

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mr. Irrelevant

      Mr. Irrelevant 1,117

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 1USCTrojan

      1USCTrojan 33

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Arodgers12

      Arodgers12 488

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • EastStreet

      EastStreet 7,615

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 21,822

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dasteez

      Dasteez 96

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • runthepost

      runthepost 1,217

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 11,053

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Maniac

      Maniac 325

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...